Arto Keklikian

The applicant sought a minor variance from the Zoning By-law to permit office and research and development centre uses on the ground floor within six metres of the front wall of an existing commercial building and addition.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact, the Committee concluded the variance was minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.

The applicant, the Estate of Sherri Watson, sought minor variances to permit a reduced lot area, interior side yard setback, and accessory building rear yard setback to facilitate a lot line adjustment with an abutting property.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the variances were minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to subdivide their property into three separate parcels for the construction of three new two-storey townhouse dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The applications were granted subject to several conditions, including a development agreement for an asphalt overlay and a noise attenuation study.

The applicants sought minor variances to subdivide their property into three separate parcels to construct three new two-storey townhouse dwellings.

The requested variances included reductions in soft landscaping, lot width, and garage setbacks.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal fits well in the area and will not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The applications were granted, subject to the revised site plan.

The applicant, the Estate of Sherri Watson, applied for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a landlocked portion of its property to an abutting property owner as part of a mutual land exchange.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Committee granted the provisional consent subject to conditions, including the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct a semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including parkland dedication, tree protection, and noise attenuation measures.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to sever a property into two separate parcels to construct two three-storey, low-rise apartment buildings.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposal represented appropriate infill development, the Committee granted provisional consent subject to several conditions, including cash-in-lieu of parkland, tree planting, and noise attenuation measures.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to create separate ownership for each half of a proposed semi-detached dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment reviewed the application against the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Finding that the proposal promoted efficient land use and development within a built-up area, and that a plan of subdivision was not necessary, the Committee granted the provisional consent subject to several conditions, including the demolition of the existing dwelling and the execution of a joint use and maintenance agreement.

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a property to create separate ownerships for each half of an existing semi-detached dwelling.

The proposed severance would create a retained parcel and a severed parcel, each containing one half of the dwelling.

The Committee considered the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The majority of the Committee was satisfied that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and had adequate regard for matters of provincial interest.

The application for provisional consent was granted, subject to conditions including independent servicing and a joint use and maintenance agreement.

One member dissented, finding insufficient evidence regarding the dimensions and shapes of the lots.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 143.79 square metres for one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling, to allow the property to be subdivided into two separate parcels.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The majority found that the variance was minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted, with one member dissenting.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 11 metres for a proposed three-storey detached dwelling, whereas the Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 10 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the requested variance was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and that insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan were maintained.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit an increased building height of 6.1 metres for a coach house, whereas the zoning by-law permitted a maximum of 3.6 metres.

The intent was to rebuild a detached garage with a second-storey coach house.

Despite the City Planning Report raising no concerns, neighbours objected due to loss of sunlight and lack of consultation.

The Committee of Adjustment refused the application, finding that the proposal did not fit well in the area, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor as it would create an unacceptable adverse impact on abutting properties.

The applicant sought minor variances to convert an existing three-unit building into a four-unit low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included a reduced interior side yard setback and permission to provide two parking spaces on a lot less than 450 square metres.

The Hintonburg Community Association opposed the application, raising concerns about soft landscaping and parking.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal reflected existing conditions and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The application was granted.

The applicant applied for minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey, 8-unit stacked dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions in minimum lot width, lot area, and side yard setback.

The Committee of Adjustment evaluated the application against the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal fits well in the area, respects the character of the neighbourhood, and represents orderly development without creating unacceptable adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application as amended.

The applicant sought four minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey addition containing four dwelling units at the rear of an existing building.

The requested variances included a reduced interior side yard setback, a reduced percentage of front façade windows, permission for a motor vehicle parking space on a lot less than 450 square metres, and access to the garbage storage area through a parking space.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances for the side yard setback and front façade windows, finding them to be minor and desirable.

However, the Committee refused the variances for the parking space and garbage access, concluding they did not represent orderly development or maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law regarding accessibility and safety.

The applicant sought a minor variance to permit a projection of a porch and balcony into the front yard within a heritage overlay, which is generally prohibited by the Zoning By-law.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the proposal was compatible with the neighbourhood, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not cause adverse impacts, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought consent to sever a property into two separate parcels to accommodate a semi-detached dwelling, each with a secondary unit.

The City requested a noise warning condition due to the property's proximity to Highway 417, which the applicants' agent questioned but the Committee ultimately required.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and was in the public interest.

The application was granted subject to conditions, including the registration of a noise warning on title and a tree planting plan.

The applicants sought a minor variance to permit a reduced lot area of 352.9 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 360 square metres, to construct a three-storey, 8-unit apartment building.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposal was consistent with intensification objectives and would not create any unacceptable adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

The application was granted.

The applicants sought minor variances to permit a reduced interior side yard setback and a reduced distance between the principal building and a proposed detached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the variances were minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback and rear yard area to construct a porch at the rear of the existing dwelling.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted.